Forums | MacLife

robco wrote:

There are trade-offs. I prefer the 360 controller, my HDTV and surround sound and the sofa to sitting at my desk. I also like the fact that instead of worrying about system reqs and such, I just get the version that works with the 360. Well, and not buying a new video card every year. I've only had mine RRoD once, but I don't play that often these days.

Perhaps you would feel differently if your iMac had an upgradable 4850x2 and an i7, plugged into your HDTV and surround system, sitting on your sofa with a 360 controller.  You'd have basically what you have now, except much better visuals, better sound, better physics, larger environments, no licensing fees.  No need to worry about system requirements because whole system upgrades would coincide with your normal replacement cycle.  So it would cost you nothing.  I don't know anyone who buys new video cards every year, but if you wanted to buy a new card every other year, it would greatly improve your visuals.  You "could" stick with the same card for the life of the machine; your image quality would not diminish.  No one ever does, of course, because good cards can be had for as little as $150, these days.  If you get a new card every two years, that's $75/year, or $25/year more than you pay for XBL (which you would no longer need).  Factor in the cheaper games, and it's like you're not spending any money at all on gaming hardware!   If Apple's lineup were a little bit different, it could change everything.

robco wrote:

No, it wouldn't because you still wouldn't get the game titles. Devs are inextricably tied to Windows. It's not just the hardware that makes the Mac a lackluster gaming platform. Part of it is lack of potential marketshare, but unless a competitor to DX gains traction, Games for Windows rules the roost.

Windows is a pre-req.  "Wintendo," as I like to call it.

Nor do I bother with upgrading constantly. Gaming is a nice hobby for some, but like any other hobby, it can be a bit of a money sink if you insist on keeping current.  If you want to run the latest titles on a 30" display with all the options cranked, you'll be replacing that video card often.

I've sufficiently addressed all of these misconceptions in my previous post.  It's also a little hypocritical to demand that a PC deliver the maximum settings all the time.  As of right now, a 4870x2 is around 12 times more powerful than a 360.  Isn't 8 times better good enough?

Hardcore gamers are a minority of users - but a vocal one. The Mac will never satisfy a hardcore gamer because Apple doesn't cater to that market and likely never will.

It's worth emphasizing that hardcore gamers represent an small minority of PC gamers -- yet NO PC gamer would be satisfied with anything Apple sells.  But I think Apple will start selling consumer towers again (gaming being one application), but not under Jobs.

NightCougar_37 wrote:

But I think Apple will start selling consumer towers again (gaming being one application), but not under Jobs.

Most realistic and sadly true statement ever about the Mac platform. For it to advance to new levels, Steve has to go. Complain all you'd like but he is holding the company back and its stagnating. Heck they haven't really changed the basic Mac case designs drastically in years. Still using much of the same ole ideas from the RISC era. Really, how much longer is the brushed metal G5 case gonna continue before they get some innovation again? Oh wait, Apple and innovation are no longer really synonymous anymore since the X86 switch. Why innovate new designs when you're just repackaging basic PC parts over and over?

Heh, new Macs aren't new, they're just upgraded with a bit less outdated PC parts and a new Intel CPU dropped in to make people think its really new .

Course why should they? They make more $$$ off the iPod and iPhones now than they do Macs.

I can't say i really disagree with anything typed here, for better or worse its true.

I can't speak for anyone else but me..  but I still like my brushed metal Mac Pro. the only real change I would make to it would be a media card reader, but I already have a few of those lying around. *shrug*

The whole thing with Apple's desktop line is that you are paying for laptop parts where laptop parts offer no particular benefit. iMacs would be a lousy deal price performance wise if they used desktop parts but since they use laptop CPUs the buyer gets even worse performance than the secretive specs Apple provides.
Because of the differences in the way laptop parts work they are 10% to 20% slower than the corresponding desktop chip or in other words a 3ghz laptop cpu is going to give you the performance of a 2.4 to 2.6 ghz desktop part. 2.4ghz C2Ds are bargain basement cpus now but approximately equal to what you get in the $2200 iMac.
The argument for a tower type configuration has nothing to do with upgrading but has everything to do with now paying a premium for sub par performance.

The advantage of using laptop CPUs in the iMac is that Apple can make a slimmer, more efficient machine. The price jump after 2.4GHz in the mobile line is around $100 to the 6MB cache versions. If you go with i7 desktops, you don't get cheap models on the PC side. I personally wouldn't get an iMac - I'd rather just use a laptop, but some people do like the simple, clean and efficient design and find it plenty powerful. I'd love to know how you'd expect to build an AIO with a desktop CPU.

I'd like to see an SFF at least. We have a Shuttle and it's been a great little machine. It's just not something Apple seems terribly interested in buiding.

Bat wrote:

They're settling for less when it would take so little on Apple's part to be better.

There's a lot of things Apple could do with so little.  The fact that they don't should tell you something.  Why would a company skip on such things, when the could be done so easily?

Mr. T wrote:

Kool-Aid Guzzler wrote:

Bat wrote:

They're settling for less when it would take so little on Apple's part to be better.

There's a lot of things Apple could do with so little.  The fact that they don't should tell you something.  Why would a company skip on such things, when the could be done so easily?

Delusion.

Perhaps. Big companies can appear schitzo and make odd/poor decisions because of their size. I don't see that from apple.  I see a razor sharp focus on what they believe to be their niche.

You would know. Your view of what the regular public should be using is every bit as narrow if not more so.

Sales are higher than ever. Market share is higher than it be since the days of the Apple II including the infamous tower & clone heavy period under Amelio. That tells me his view is closer to the mark than the one you express.

Anecdotally speaking that is my experience as well robco. I've replaced a failed power supply on one occasion though.

Pariah wrote:

Kool-Aid Guzzler wrote:

Mr. T wrote:

Delusion.

Perhaps. Big companies can appear schitzo and make odd/poor decisions because of their size. I don't see that from apple.  I see a razor sharp focus on what they believe to be their niche.

Anyone who knows anything about Jobs' history wouldn't be at all surprised by the choices Apple has made. Jobs is a great salesman with an EXTREMELY narrow view of what the regular public should be using.
Funny, go back to the early 80's and see Jobs doing the same thing, right down to the inadequate cooling and tales of Jobs taking the hatchet to upgradibility.
Heck, a big part of why Jobs was run out of Apple in the first place was that even as relatively expensive as Macs and "II's" were Jobs went on the war path trying to cut even more features and charging even more than they were.
Jobs has hated consumer level choice since day one.

Exactly.

He has vision, right or wrong, and combined with head-strength and charisma, you get the current situation.  I have to give it to Sci, because in this latest incarnation, he appears to have nailed it.  I personally like where they are at and where they appear to be going.  As much as it infuriates some to hear others say this, I like the fewer choices and limited upgrade options - it makes everything Mac simpler and makes me feel like Apple has taken responsibility for getting it right out of the gate for my needs.

Apple's graphics card options for the Mac Pros are lame.  The rest is fine from what I see "most" people do with their computers.

-mark

gd wrote:

robco wrote:

No, it wouldn't because you still wouldn't get the game titles. Devs are inextricably tied to Windows. It's not just the hardware that makes the Mac a lackluster gaming platform. Part of it is lack of potential marketshare, but unless a competitor to DX gains traction, Games for Windows rules the roost.

Have you seen some of the boxes for PC game titles; some, but not all, have the minimum Mac requirements.

That would only be in the case of hybrid discs that had both Windows and OSX versions. Pretty rare actually. WoW and Spore, perhaps.

Though I really don't care since all I ever play on my Mac is the Halo trial (the only thing I actually like from MS)

You should give H2 and -3 a try, then. They're all Bungie. While the full Halo game for Mac is rather rare and expensive now, the PC version is still around for $20 or less should Boot Camp be an option.

But this was really about OSes, APIs and developers.

You seem rather young. Your tastes will likely evolve in coming years.

gd wrote:

Have you seen some of the boxes for PC game titles; some, but not all, have the minimum Mac requirements. Though I really don't care since all I ever play on my Mac is the Halo trial (the only thing I actually like from MS) and some emulators for N64, NES and Game Boy games. Those old games really are more entertaining than some of the current titles. Makes me sad for my PS3 since I haven't used it in months.

Few people want to play on minspec. You're speaking of average folks who would be happy playing at 10x7 and/or with medium settings. Gamers want to play at full 30" rez (even if they don't have a display that large) with all the options cranked, getting triple digit fps numbers. You're also talking about games of today, not tomorrow. The Mac is fine for folks who want to play the occasional game, but not those whose primary purpose for owning a computer is gaming.

If you wanted to play Halo, shoulda got a 360 instead. You can download the earlier Halos through XBL fairly cheap, or find them at used game shops on the cheap. I got one mostly because I haven't seen any interesting titles on the PS3 - exclusive ones anyway.

And Bat is right. As I've pointed out, it's not just about hardware. Apple could make SuperHappyGamingRigA#1 with dual high-end graphics cards, 16TB of RAM and the i7 Extreme and it would still suck as a gaming rig - unless you add Windows via Boot Camp.